It is notable that Rockefeller and several other members who have been leaders on intelligence issues, such as Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, voted against the nomination. The "no" votes were the appropriate ones. During the nominating process, Porter Goss made the case against himself. Troublingly, few senators were paying attention
Editorial: CIA boss failed test
An editorial
September 25, 2004
Porter Goss has won the support of the Senate and will now head the troubled Central Intelligence Agency.
But the Senate's decision to approve the nomination of Goss was not a vote of confidence. Rather, it was a courtesy vote.
Prior to his nomination, Goss had served since 1988 as a Republican member of the House for a Florida district. It is the tradition of the Senate to approve the nominations of members of the current Congress to serve in high-level positions. And Goss benefited more from that tradition than he did from his own performance in hearings before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
In fact, if senators had given a serious listen to what Goss was saying when he testified before the committee, they would have rejected his nomination.
The Floridian came off as precisely the wrong sort of leader for an agency that suffers from a lack of focus and cohesion.
Goss did not offer himself as a take-charge kind of guy. Rather, he came off as a take-no-responsibility kind of guy.
During a discussion of how to improve operations at the agency that President Bush has nominated him to direct, Goss grumbled, "The absence of proof of adequate intelligence oversight should not be considered proof of the absence of forthcoming intelligence reforms."
The problem with that statement, of course, is that Goss was the guy responsible for intelligence oversight when he served in the House.
As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee for the past eight years, he was the member of Congress who was supposed to be in charge of monitoring the agency - and of prodding it to address the increasingly obvious flaws in its operations.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that Goss failed in his intelligence oversight duties as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Yet, instead of trying to explain that failure, he simply told the Senate Intelligence Committee that its members should not see his failure to organize adequate intelligence oversight as evidence that he would fail to develop adequate intelligence reforms.
It was unfortunate that most members of the Senate - Democrats and Republicans - failed to press Goss to provide straight answers. When all was said and done, only a few senators - led by West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller - dared to suggest that Goss had not made a good show of it when he appeared before the upper chamber's intelligence committee.
In the end, Goss was confirmed by a 77-17 vote of the full Senate - with Wisconsin Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl making the disappointing choice to side with the majority. But it is notable that Rockefeller and several other members who have been leaders on intelligence issues, such as Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, voted against the nomination.
The "no" votes were the appropriate ones. During the nominating process, Porter Goss made the case against himself. Troublingly, few senators were paying attention.
Published: 6:32 AM 9/25/04
